KEYWORD: Guideline F; Guideline E
DIGEST: We conclude that Applicant’s assertions are sufficient to raise a prima facie case that
he submitted documents in response to the FORM that did not arrive at DOHA or were not sent
to the Judge.  We cannot resolve this issue based upon the facts before us.  We conclude that the
best resolution is to remand the case to the Judge for further processing consistent with the
Directive.  Adverse decision remanded.
CASENO: 14-06467.a1
DATE: 02/24/2016
DATE: February 24, 2016
In Re:
--------------
 
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 14-06467
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
2
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  In
February 2015, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E
(Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)
(Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  On December 24, 2015, after
considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
James F. Duffy denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant
to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether Applicant submitted documentary
evidence that was not included in the record and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue
in this appeal.  Consistent with the following, we remand the case to the Judge. 
Applicant asserts that he previously submitted documents in response to the File of Relevant
Material (FORM).  We note that these documents–a letter from Applicant discussing his financial
circumstances and a letter from an attorney addressing a proposed bankruptcy action–are not found
in the record.  Applicant’s assertions on appeal constitute new evidence, which we are generally
prohibited from considering.  However, we will consider new evidence insofar as it bears upon
threshold issues such as due process. See, e.g., ISCR Case No.14-00812 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 8, 2015).
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that Applicant’s assertions are sufficient to raise a prima
facie case that he submitted documents in response to the FORM that either did not arrive at DOHA
or were not sent to the Judge.  We cannot resolve this issue based upon the facts before us.
Accordingly, we conclude that the best resolution of this case is to remand it to the Judge for further
processing consistent with the Directive.  See ISCR Case No. 12-07667 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Mar. 11,
2013).   
Order
The Decision is REMANDED.  
Signed: Michael Ra’anan  
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett            
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
3
Signed: James E. Moody             
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board